The ethics of research on less expensive, less effective interventions: A case for analysis [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4):295-302 (2008)
The Kennedy Krieger lead paint study is a landmark case in human experimentation and a classic case in research ethics. In this paper I use the lead paint study to assist in the analysis of the ethics of research on less expensive, less effective interventions. I critically evaluate an argument by Buchanan and Miller who defend both the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study and public health research on less expensive, less effective interventions. I conclude that Buchanan and Miller’s argument is flawed but that does not mean that research designed to find less effective interventions cannot be justified in some situations. Based on my analysis, I suggest questions to ask when considering such research and I offer some principles to guide us. In the process, light is shed on the various debates and issues raised by the lead paint study; e.g. standards of care, researchers’ responsibilities to research subjects, the distinction between treatment and research and the question of what it is that legitimizes public health research.
|Keywords||Research ethics Kennedy Krieger lead paint study Cost–benefit analysis Standards of care Less expensive, less effective interventions|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Tom L. Beauchamp (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
M. Spriggs (2004). Canaries in the Mines: Children, Risk, Non-Therapeutic Research, and Justice. Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (2):176-181.
Loretta M. Kopelman (2002). Pediatric Research Regulations Under Legal Scrutiny: Grimes Narrows Their Interpretation. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30 (1):38-49.
David J. Rothman (1982). Were Tuskegee & Willowbrook 'Studies in Nature'? Hastings Center Report 12 (2):5-7.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Carol A. Wilson, James F. Alexander & Charles W. Turner (1996). Family Therapy Process and Outcome Research: Relationship to Treatment Ethics. Ethics and Behavior 6 (4):345 – 352.
Ronald M. Green (2010). Political Interventions in U.S. Human Embryo Research: An Ethical Assessment. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (2):220-228.
Terry Dunbar & Margaret Scrimgeour (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (3):179-185.
Charles Weijer & Paul B. Miller (2007). Refuting the Net Risks Test: A Response to Wendler and Miller's "Assessing Research Risks Systematically". Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):487-490.
Claudia Wild (2005). Ethics of Resource Allocation: Instruments for Rational Decision Making in Support of a Sustainable Health Care. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (4):296-309.
John D. Lantos & William L. Meadow (2011). Costs and End-of-Life Care in the NICU: Lessons for the MICU? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (2):194-200.
Andrew D. McRae & Charles Weijer, Lessons From Everyday Lives: A Moral Justification for Acute Care Research.
Ori Lev, Franklin G. Miller & Ezekiel J. Emanuel (2010). The Ethics of Research on Enhancement Interventions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):101-113.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #150,417 of 1,724,718 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #210,964 of 1,724,718 )
How can I increase my downloads?